It is a business deal. Neither side would do it if it didn't mean a profit or benefit down the road. Privilege implies a whole different thing.

You have consistent trouble with words. I'd suggest putting more thought into how you present your ideas.

You are correct, in the literal sense of the law. When I meant privilege I didn't mean it in the literal sense of the law, I mean it as a god damn privilege for both parts, as in, "a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions" which in this case translates to an advertisement being placed on a site in order for the site to gain revenue from its exposure.

As for my words, you should worry more about your own continuing trolling of all gamergate threads and I'll take care of my own words, thank you.

And still nothing on TFYC I see, which is what breaks the narrative completely of all SJWs. They can't stand that Gamergate funded a great project to help women developers, it completely goes against their narrative.

How does TFYC 'break the narrative?' From the start it broke the narrative, because it is a project that was slandered by SJWs from the moment it was funded by 4chan, and then GamerGate, in their indiegogo campaign and it's a project meant to aid women developers in the industry, something that SJWs keep saying Gamergate is not about.

This is the narrative breaker that every SJW loves to ignore because it proves that Gamergate was always about helping women and exposing the lack of ethics in "gaming journalism". When they were hacked, no SJW site covered this despite them covering about all the harassment GG allegedly did against everyone in their buddy list.

As a final word, I remember your first post on the GamerGate topics here on Blue being that you didn't really care much for all this. In that case, and since you are weary of this, I suggest you leave these threads if they bother you so much.

Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 16:47:Why would being a misogynist not be a valid reason to be fired from a job?

Why would it be? In that case, let's extend this and say religious belief, or lack of it, is also a valid reason to fire under the law.

Find me the law that says that being a misogynist is enough of a reason to get fired and I'll concede, because I think if anyone would be fired for that they would place their ex-boss in court and easily win. Personal beliefs are NOT and never were a reason to fire anyone under the eyes of the law. If you flaunt those beliefs or personality traits or whatever you wish to call them and make yourself a nuisance, maybe there's a case there, but if you keep it to yourselves, well, no court in the US or Europe would allow anyone to be fired for "being a misogynist".

Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 16:47:Removing an ad isn't censorship? Trying to get a site to be defunded because you disagree with their opinion is. You were literally trying to bankrupt them because they hurt your feelings.

An advertisement is a PRIVILEGE. It is given by a company that wished to be publicized in exchange of monetary or other types of gains. I shouldn't be the one teaching commercial law to you. Also, capitalism. What's happening is thanks to capitalism. Public site makes derogatory articles, consumers that were targeted by those articles write emails to companies that place advertisements expressing their thoughts, companies decide on what's most profitable for them based on those emails. If removing advertisement is censorship, the whole of capitalism is censorship then. If those sites die down, well, that's not censorship, that's capitalism at work, that's consumers moving to greener pastures where they're better treated, that's those sites not seeing their folly of attacking their own consumer base, of not adapting to new ways of media.

Tell you what, find me any law, any lawyer, any judge in the US or Europe that even hints at removing advertisements as censorship. You won't find any because it's not censorship, it never was and it shocks me you keep defending this.

Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 16:47:Brianna Wu did not paint GG as something it never was. Search your own history for "SJW." It's ALWAYS been about being angry at women. From the start. That's where it came from. Eronj didn't make his video to uncover something wonderful, he did it because he was hurt. "Burgers and Fries" didn't become a tagline because of ethics, it did because people thought a woman having sex with five people was funny.

There are so many worse instances of journalism ethics in games, and they're ignored as people instead keep turning to social issues. Massive swag for reviews? Ignored. Editorials about feminism? Burn the site down!

And now who's generalizing?

And still nothing on TFYC I see, which is what breaks the narrative completely of all SJWs. They can't stand that Gamergate funded a great project to help women developers, it completely goes against their narrative.

Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 16:11:Funny, I often feel I'm one of the few here that uses reason rather than launching off on tirades about what people must not be allowed to do, as you frequently say.

Brianna Wu is not a journalist. Even if she's interviewed, she has nothing to do with journalist integrity so constantly spamming us with shit you feel she's done is pointless.

You focus on "SJWs" infinitely more than you do on journalism ethics. You call me "intellectually dishonest," while never, ever pointing to proof. Your enormous history of complaining about "SJWs" while claiming it's about ethics seems fairly true that you have no clue what you're talking about, what you're fighting for, what your narrative is, or even what's going on.

I'm sorry but I never promoted censorship and yes, I do know the post you're referring to and I replied to it later that my wording was bad. However I also never compared removing an ad to censorship, like you did, or implying that being a mysoginyst is a valid enough reason to get fired from a job, as you did. If you are going to play the generalization game with me from one single post of mine then Beamer, I have bad news for you, all your posts paint you as a terrible user of logic, discourse and reason. Removing an ad as censorship, fucking LOL.

Again moving the goalposts with Brianna Wu. She painted the gamergate movement as something it is not and never was, and she did it on a public forum. Much like Leigh Alexander's articles are open for scrutiny and criticism for being published on an open platform, Wu's motives are also open for criticism since she spoke on a very public platform. Why? Because it opens the doors to understand her motivations, her reasons. General rule, if you can't deal with criticism, don't go on a public forum and stand on a soapbox. If you do, expect to be interrogated on your motivations, like it happens in pretty much everything in the world. And now we're again back on ethics.

Speaking of ethics, I find it interesting that you do not comment on anything I posted, on the huffington post interview for instance. Funny how you choose to ignore the Fine Young Capitalists as well. Doesn't spin to your narrative, do they, having gamergate sponsored in a big way a venue for female developers to shine in this industry? So please, don't talk to me about ethics since it's obvious that's a discipline you clearly missed when you went to law school, if you went to law school. Removing ads as censorship, what a laugh.

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 13:55:The advantage here is GG is also getting positive press, precisely because this issue has gotten bigger. Which is partly why anti-GG people are freaking out on the media end. They are not used to being replied to on anything approaching an equal level.

Yeah pretty much nailed it there. They expected the same sort of one sided bullshit we've been seeing for months thanks to gaming editorials and other nonsense. Now that people aren't reacting the way they want them to its freak out time. Oh well, looks good on them for being dumb and lumping everyone together when people bitched about it time and time again.

Yep. They are used to being the ones controlling the narrative, so any challenge to that makes them freak out and circle the wagons.

The problem with circling the wagons is that, at some point, there won't be much space left inside the circle, and they are reaching that point.

Loopy wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 15:13:Ohhh my God, I actually clicked on that History of... link out of ill-advised curiosity and it was like someone writing a term paper on NerdWar 2.0 Advanced Tactics. Why is Patrick Stewart's picture there? What is with all the little cartoon girls? Are those the girls that play videogames??

Instead of trolling you could have, you know, actually read the site and all your questions would have been answered.

Quboid wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 14:51:Are you honestly stupid enough to think that ISIS trying to hijack hashtags is an endorsement? Evidently yes. They're also keen on the BBC's "The Price Of Football" report, the trouble in the Serbia - Albania football match and the scorer of Ireland's late, late equaliser against Germany. Or they post their propaganda under the trending tags.

I was going to point out how ridiculous it is for someone using the label SJW to talk about bias, and how you're focusing on the actions of the extreme few to paint a large group and what the rest of GamerGate seems to think of that but what's the point. Come on, ISIS propaganda?!

No, obviously ISIS doesn't care nor does it even know what GG is. It's about the irony of it, because GamerGate wascompared to ISIS many times. So the irony is that ISIS uses an anti-GG hashtag, even if they did it for more coverage, but still a damn fine irony nonetheless.

Also, you don't get to say I focus on a few to paint a large picture because that's all you lot, not you specifically mind, have been doing, calling all gamers misogynists, and far worse, and painting all of us under a very large brush. Before you accuse me of generalization, look at your own camp first.

The Fine Young Capitalists, a project to help women developers in the industry and funded mostly by GamerGate, reaffirms their support for GG. Again, funnily, no sites nor any SJWs dare to mention this inconvenient fact.

Redmask wrote on Oct 7, 2014, 21:31:Oh please, go read some of her tweets, she antagonizes people on purpose and brags about ruining careers.

This is my first time hearing about this chick and her troubles, but according to her presentation she says a lot of her "tweets" are falsified photoshops reposted by aggressors. Actually going to her twitter, you can't see her tweets unless you're a follower of her, of which there's only about 3,000

That is a complete falsehood, people and the press have archived her tweets. The protected twitter crap is a recent development because she got embarrassed when people used past ones against her then she tried to delete them.

The SJW will literally make things up to suit their purposes and people still defend them. This is insane.

UHD wrote on Oct 6, 2014, 12:06:I'm mostly talking about bullshit like this:

ASeven wrote on Oct 5, 2014, 16:50:This is why SJWs must not be allowed to keep spreading their hate-filled speech lest gaming suffers a backward leap so huge it may set the industry decades until it recovers.

Have your opinions, but don't go thinking nobody else can have theirs because they're not the same as yours. That stupid shit benefits no one.

The irony of this, coming from you, is hilarious.

Though I gladly admit my fault in writing that phrase that way, didn't mean it to sound it like that. Perhaps I should have said:

This is why SJWs should be overwhelmed with facts to silence their lies and strawmen to keep them from spreading their hate-filled speech lest gaming suffers a backward leap so huge it may set the industry decades until it recovers.

Prez wrote on Oct 5, 2014, 16:15:I agree that the issue has gotten somewhat convoluted (partially by design on the part of the self-righteous crusaders who like building strawmen then later cutting them down) but I have to agree with Redmask. My fear is that if we don't at least occasionally offer up some significant resistance to the absolute face-palm stupid things the hyprocritical crusading thought police are pushing we may be sorry we didn't later on down the road. Beamer is wrong; they don't just want the occasional game with a strong female lead. They want far more than that, and without someone offering counterpoint to their idiocy, developers and publishers may eventually start listening to them. That's my opinion anyway.

They want what all moral movements in history ever wanted, control and power. Power to dictate what can be said and written and what not. Power to stop the production of anything they don't like.

They are the typical representation of thought police and anyone who knows a bit of history or sociology can tell, thought police movements never bring any good to society, never. From the Volstead Act of 1919 to Nazi Germany and their race ideology to the witch hunts of McCarthy, history has shown that anyone using any kind of "moral" ideology to push their own agenda has ended up bringing misery upon society. SJWs are a reflection of the thought police movement, self-described oppressed people who suffered some sort of oppression, be it real or imagined, and are now using it as an excuse to restrict, censor and mold society to their own ideology with the end results always being terrible.

This is why SJWs must not be allowed to keep spreading their hate-filled speech lest gaming suffers a backward leap so huge it may set the industry decades until it recovers.

For a final insight and a bit of a laugh, I leave this picture as an example. Take your own conclusions.